The decision by President Jacob Zuma to launch a commission of enquiry into the controversial arms deal has largely been hailed a positive sign in the fight against corruption, but his motives and timing have nevertheless been called into question by some critics and analysts.
On Thursday, Zuma announced through his spokesperson Mac Maharaj that he had instructed Justice and Constitutional Development Minister Jeff Radebe to set up an investigation into the Strategic Defence Procurement Packages, as the “arms deal” is formally known.
“The president will soon announce the terms of reference and the composition of the commission, including the time frames,” Maharaj said in a statement.
The controversial arms package that was meant to modernise the country’s defences has been a bone of contention in South African politics since allegations of corruption first arose in 1999.
Then-Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) MP Patricia de Lille was the first to blow the whistle on alleged irregularities in the deal, which was then worth R30-billion.
“It has been a long journey spanning 12 years for this to happen, but I have to ask: Why has this taken so long?” De Lille said on Thursday.
Zuma’s decision comes ahead of a Constitutional Court hearing on November 17 about whether a formal commission should be formed to probe the matter, after the Western Cape High Court ruled in 2009 that the matter should be looked into, but that the high court could itself not direct the president to open such an inquiry.
Who will head the commission?
The ball is firmly in Zuma’s court when it comes to deciding who will head up the arms deal probe and exactly what scope the investigation will have, something that has left many sceptical as Zuma was heavily implicated in the original corruption allegations surrounding the deal.
“I will be waiting for what is going to be put before this commission to decide if I trust it or not,” De Lille told the Mail & Guardian.
Several attempts to uncover wrongdoing in the multibillion-rand deal have already been thwarted.
After a formal request in late 2000 by the now defunct Heath anti-corruption unit for a formal investigation into the transaction on the back of reports of irregularities by then-auditor general Shauket Fakie some months earlier, then-president Thabo Mbeki put an end to Heath’s involvement.
Andrew Feinstein, the ANC’s official spokesperson on the parliamentary public accounts committee who resigned in 2001 after the ANC refused to launch a probe into the arms deal, gave Zuma’s decision to reopen the investigation a cautious welcome.
“I think that one instinctively wants to welcome such a decision, but it is entirely dependent on the nature of the commission of inquiry. It needs to be seen as independent and not sympathetic to the president and ANC,” said Feinstein, whose book After the Party looks into the history of the investigations into the arms deal.
Analysts suggest whoever does end up setting up the commission will not only have a tough job of conducting a thorough investigation, but also of convincing the South African public that Zuma is serious about the matter.
“Obviously it’s a step forward,” Professor Steven Friedman of the Institute for Democracy in South Africa told the M&G. “But we shouldn’t assume that this is going to be a comprehensive and satisfactory investigation into what has gone wrong. Whoever is appointed will have to persuade a very sceptical public.”
Further reaction to Zuma’s announcement:
- Helen Zille, DA: This is the president’s opportunity to lead. After all these years, the South African public deserves to finally know the whole truth behind the arms deal. The cancer of corruption is destroying the body politic of South Africa with the arms deal at its core. Now is the time to excise it.
For more news on the arms deal visit our special report.